Ethical
Decision
Making
Steve Chenoweth
A discussion for engineers and
project managers
1
Big question – “What should you do”?
• In real world situations, usually –
– The outcomes aren’t completely clear. And,
– There are downsides to any action. And,
– Your role isn’t definitive.
• E.g., You notice a problem, but you’re not in charge.
• A classic example of “double efffect,” from
philosopher Philippa Foot (1967) 
2
The Trolley Problem
• Trolley is coming. It’s going to crush five
people.
• You can move the lever, to doom only one
person, instead.
• Group activity: What would you do?
3
But wait…
• New problem – You are a surgeon. You have people
sitting in your waiting room, who will die without
transplants.
• The guy in the middle is completely healthy. His
organs would prevent the death of everyone else in
the room.
– And he’s kind of old,
anyway.
– What would you do?
4
What ethics is
• Systematizing, defending, and recommending
concepts of right and wrong behavior.
• Metaethics investigates where our ethical
principles come from, and what they mean.
• Normative ethics takes on a more practical
task, which is to arrive at moral standards that
regulate right and wrong conduct.
• Applied ethics involves examining specific
controversial issues, using the above two.
5
We have normative ethics for software
The IEEE Code:
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
to accept responsibility in making decisions consistent with the safety, health, and welfare of the
public, and to disclose promptly factors that might endanger the public or the environment;
to avoid real or perceived conflicts of interest whenever possible, and to disclose them to
affected parties when they do exist;
to be honest and realistic in stating claims or estimates based on available data;
to reject bribery in all its forms;
to improve the understanding of technology; its appropriate application, and potential
consequences;
to maintain and improve our technical competence and to undertake technological tasks for
others only if qualified by training or experience, or after full disclosure of pertinent limitations;
to seek, accept, and offer honest criticism of technical work, to acknowledge and correct errors,
and to credit properly the contributions of others;
to treat fairly all persons and to not engage in acts of discrimination based on race, religion,
gender, disability, age, national origin, sexual orientation, gender identity, or gender expression;
to avoid injuring others, their property, reputation, or employment by false or malicious action;
to assist colleagues and co-workers in their professional development and to support them in
following this code of ethics.
The ACM Code is similar.
6
So, we can apply this in our work.
Group activity: What should you do in the following situation:
• Originally our customer asked for a sophisticated product upgrade,
targeted to be used by their existing, experienced group of users.
We created the feature set so that experts could make the most
efficient use of the upgraded system.
• The customer later decided their product also needed to operated
by a wider group of occasional users, who lacked the background of
the originally targeted user group. Our most recent, sophisticated
features could easily be used incorrectly by this new set of users,
because there was no additional training requested to go with the
upgrade.
• How much obligation do we have, to prevent possible damage
resulting from the misuse of our product?
7
Project management ethics
• Project Management Institute has a more
elaborate set of ethical standards for PM’s.
• At the same time, it can result in cloudy
guidance because of this large scope. E.g.,
consider the following section. 
8
3.2 Respect: Aspirational Standards
As practitioners in the global project management community:
– 3.2.1 We inform ourselves about the norms and customs of others and avoid
engaging in behaviors they might consider disrespectful.
– 3.2.2 We listen to others’ points of view, seeking to understand them.
– 3.2.3 We approach directly those persons with whom we have a conflict or
disagreement.
– 3.2.4 We conduct ourselves in a professional manner, even when it is not
reciprocated.
• Typical issue: In order to sell a product in another country, you have to
give a bribe to a government official who controls licensing. This is against
your company code of ethics, but follows the country’s code of ethics. You
discover the problem after committing resources to the project.
• Your vice president suggests that the transaction be completed through a
third party, so as to avoid a direct conflict.
9
Project Management Application
Group activity: What should you do in the following situation:
• You have been asked to provide a project update at the next client
meeting. You start putting together a presentation and highlight a
high probability of delay and not being able to meet some of the
client’s requirements.
• The sales executive asks to review the presentation and sends it
back after deleting the key points about delays and issues. He
comments that you only need to highlight the positive
accomplishments or else the company will not win a related project
that it is bidding for.
• Do you go along with the sales executive’s recommendation? Do
you highlight the truth in the client briefing? Do you ask to be
excluded from the meeting?
10
Typical recurring PM issues
• “Wired” bids and contracts (the winner has been predetermined),
• “Buy-in” (bidding low with intent of cutting corners or
forcing subsequent contract changes),
• Kickbacks,
• “Covering” for team members (group cohesiveness),
• Taking “shortcuts” (to meet deadlines or budgets),
• Using marginal (substandard) materials,
• Compromising on safety,
• Violating standards, and
• Consultant loyalties (to employer or to client or to public).
11
Why the PM is in a tougher spot
• If the project manager is at fault for the
unsuccessful venture of project completion,
then that project manager must be able to
admit this wrong.
• Not admitting wrongdoing can greatly damage
the team relationship.
• The unethical practice will also most likely
cause the team members you are in charge of
to not trust the manager as well.
12
Why the PM is in a tougher spot, cntd
• When a project fails, it is so much easier to point the
fingers at this person or that person.
• However, ethically, no person should be singled out for
project failure unless it is the project manager. In the
end, he or she is the one assigned the ultimate task of
ensuring the project is completed.
• However, there is no “I” in team. Although the project
manager is in charge of ensuring the task gets
completed, sometimes a task can fail despite the
project manager’s best efforts. In these cases of project
incompletion or failure, it should be said that the team
failed.
13
A case study
• As an example, see the study
athttps://www.scu.edu/ethics/focus-areas/more/engineering-ethics/engineering-ethicscases/occidental-engineering-case-study-part-1/
• Was it clear what Wayne Davidson should have
done, as you read this?
• Was it clearer after looking at the IEEE code of
ethics, for example?
• Group activity: What was the first unethical act,
and what would you have done differently?
14
Why it’s not easy
• In any project / engineering situation, there are
many ways to look at it.
• There will be inherent disagreements depending on
self-interests and
group interests.
• And, as I say that,
my project is
“90% done.”
15
Frames of reference
• These lead to different conclusions.
• Which brings us back to “metaethics.”
– Especially the psychological basis for moral
judgments and conduct.
– What motivates us to be moral?
•
•
•
•
•
Avoid punishment?
Gain praise?
Achieve happiness?
Be dignified?
Fit in with society?
16
Egoism vs Altruism
• Engineering is supposed to show benevolence to
others.
• People in compromised situations often argue away
from this, that everything is inherently selfish, thus
an option that’s more selfish, but compromised, isn’t
so bad.
• Or, that there are other parties they care about, who
would be hurt if they didn’t act in a way contrary to
the greater good.
– Employees would be hurt if we admitted we delivered a
bad product…
17
Emotion vs Reason
• Is all ethics based on emotion?
– We do tend to feel emotional about these choices.
– David Hume argued all moral assessments involve our
emotions, not reason.
– Evidence: On topics of morality, people tend not to be
swayed by the other side’s reason.
– Immanuel Kant, in contrast, argued that we should
resist emotional sway. True moral action is motivated
by reason.
– Evidence: We expect moral judgments to be backed
up by reasonable explanations supporting actions.
18
Gender considerations
• Traditional morality is male-centered valuing:
– Acquiring property
– Engaging in business contracts
– Governing societies
• Rigid systems of rules required for these actions.
– Ignores the morality of spontaneously helping others.
• In women’s experience, the agent becomes part of the
situation, and acts caringly within that context.
• Versus a mechanical actor who performs his duty, but can be
distanced from and unaffected by the situation.
19
Frames of reference to consider
• “Be the customer”:
–
–
–
–
Go visit their environment, spend a day with them.
Understand why they have the values they do.
Try to step through a scenario in their shoes.
Come back and explain it to your colleagues!
• “Be the user”:
– Ditto the above steps.
• “Be whoever else it’s about”:
– Ditto the above steps.
20
Example
• An “ethnographic study” on the Roomba in
Italy!
A wider
perspective even
than Conops…
A setup for
getting to Conops,
without losing
anything.
21